If he's in trouble, doesn't that mean they have to have those hearings over again? Oh, I forgot, we live in America. Just sweep those hearings under the rug, if the guy running them is found to be a felon.

Was there EVER so much corruption stemming from one party all at the same time? Has this ever happened before in American history? How many Republicans are in jail, under indictment, or being investigated? And that's with a Republican-contolled government! Imagine if the Republicans DIDN'T control all branches of government, and the courts! The whole Republican party would be in jail!

The honest, true conservatives should leave the
Republican party, since they can't kick these guys out because they took over their party. They should duck out of the GOP, and form the "Conservative Party". Guys like Ron Paul.

Oh yeah...it happens over and over again...it really doesn't matter WHICH party is in power. It's an endless cyle. I enjoy this site except for the fact that they seem to think that corruption is merely a "Republican thing". I am approaching 60 years of age and I've seen corruption in every administration...it doesn't matter which party is in party. The only problem I see here is that you
guys seem to think things would be different if the Dems were in power. For the record...before the name calling starts. I am NOT a troll. I was a Democrat most of my life and changed to Independent years ago when I could no longer stand the feeling that I owed an allegiance to a party. I hold both parties in equal contempt.
Emma

Though, from -my- expierence, Repubicans "tend" to be more corrupt than Dems.. at least in scale.. Personally, I've never liked "politicians" at all, they all lie and manipulate to get what they want, and now they have a society that's brain-dead and gluttonous.. not a good combination.

However, in -general-, Dems tend to care more about "people", while Republicans tend to care more about "businesses".. For me, that's the basic difference, and why I tend to support "Dems" over "Repugs".. As has been shown in other threads, the "party affiliation" has changed over time, all we have is the "here and now" to look at, and in the "here and now", Repugs are WAY more corrupt than the Dems (at least, the implication of so many Repugs in trouble and so few Dems, in the midst of a Repug government -implies- there's a lot more bad from the Pugs)..

Most of us here want -all- corruption out of our government, and aren't afraid to bash on a Dem if they have it coming. The trolls though, don't seem to get that and are stuck in partisan mode.. that does no one any good. It's funny when they come here and say "Dem so-and-so comitted a crime!!" and we go "Then prosecute them!!".. they don't like that

I think Democrats are less corrupt, but maybe only to a degree. I think the entrenched Democractic party structure - DNC, DLC - they have an agenda to stay in power, which is an intrinsically flawed and corrupt agenda. It's just a different kind of corruption - an inner corruption, as opposed to the outer corruption of the Republicans which unleashes its vile tendrils on everyone it can. I was hoping Dean would make strides to change the party corruption of the Dems (the same dishonesty that led to his downfall in the primaries), but it appears not. I was a Green-leaning independent from early on the Clinton admin, and I only voted for Kerry (which is a vote I regret) because I thought it was an imperative to remove Bush, but now I'm back to being Green. I think the Democrats have certainly a better message, and are more ethical, but I would happily see prosecuted any Democrat who was involved in illegalities - especially those that hurt the general public. I expect out and out corruption and rottenness from Republicans - I don't from Democrats, even though I know they have been dirty in the past. It is so vital that Democrats remain ethical to the nth degree - any violations or even implication of wrongdoing will hurt the job of taking these ultimate crooks out of power.

The important thing is that there be AT LEAST two strong parties to act as a check and balance against each other to keep them honest. The more diversity the better in my opinion. Although I lean Democrat generally, I consider myself more progressive than most of the most dedicated party backers who often have a self-interest to pursue.

For Emma: Both parties do it, but Republicans do it with more panache, and with more disregard for public opinion.

Why? I think it's because they're the party of "free enterprise." What was Reaganomics all about, except lowering taxes, eliminating regulations, and letting "the system work?" The system, to Republicans, simply means using money and power to achieve selfish ends. It isn't that complicated, really. The rich get richer, and those that enable the enrichment (on Capitol Hill) share in the bounty.

When Democrats are in power, there's also corruption, but it's more diffused. Labor unions gain influence, Democratic leaders cater to labor leaders, and they share in the bounty. Taxes are usually higher under Democrats, so tax-avoidance schemes gain currency, and that becomes a cottage industry. Democrats sell their souls to special interest groups in return for financial and political support.

If Bush hadn't gone into Iraq, this administration would have been like William Howard Taft's or Warren G. Harding's...fiscal conservatism combined with pro-business policies and a minimum of forward-thinking legislation. By starting a war and not paying for it with current dollars, Bush has combined the worst of both worlds...letting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, without balancing the budget. Meanwhile, all the jackals who historically have taken advantage of laissez-faire governments in the past are back, feeding at the trough. And just as during the Gilded Age of the 1920's, the media have let the party go on without challenging those in power.

Until recently. Thanks to bradblog and other sites, the public is wising up. If the Internet had been around in Harding's day, Teapot Dome would have been exposed a year or two sooner than it was.

Emma - I'll add to some of the other thoughts with my own comments on this.

Yes, there is always corruption in both parties. With the most generally found in the party in power. But the difference here, is several fold.

One is the *unprecedented* amount of corruption we're looking at. Time and time again, folks I've talked to about it, who have been reporting on this stuff for decades all say they've *never* seen anything that approaches the scale we're now witnessing. I ask a lot of them, because I too wonder if it's just because *I* happen to be paying more attention than I used to. To a one of 'em they say, "No, this is as bad as it's ever been"

Two the *scale* of the corruption. Meaning the size of it. The *millions* of dollars in the case of Abramoff, Scanlon, DeLay, Ney et al. The thousands of *lives* in the case of Bush, Cheney et al. And the worldwide scope of the corruption which will harm America for decades to come.

Please note, the type of corruption you refer to as "both sides do it" I'd put in the catagory of something like the Cunningham guy out here in CA. A Republican U.S. House member who was indicted for a scheme wherein a defense contractor paid several thousands of more dollars for his house than it was worth.

That's old school, dime-a-dozen dirt. And thus, I don't know that I've ever even bothered to discuss it here on BRAD BLOG.

The stuff I've reported on here regards life and death and millions of dollars and consequences for potential generations to come.

Add to it all the *new* notion that Republicans don't merely wish to defeat or disagree with their Democratic opponents. They wish to CRUSH them. To DESTROY them entirely. And they are willing to play such shameless cards that Joe McCarthy would be either very proud or totally appalled at how far these folks are willing to go.

To say "both sides do it" merely levels a most decidedly unlevel playing field. I *wish* it all was as small and quant and politics-as-usual as you have represented it. Unfortunately, it isn't. Not by a long shot right now.

Brad - Cunningham's several thousand dollars was totally representative of your point on "scale of corruption". If I remember correctly, the several thousand was more like $900,000. I may be off a bit, because it was a while back, but it's somewhere in that neighborhood. SR

Bob Ney is ridiculously corrupt. All of these guys in both parties are corrupt besides the progressives!!!!

For instance, I can't find one member of the DLC who is NOT corrupt or who is NOT like Hillary Clinton & friends.

I can only find Harry Reid in the Senate who is willing to stand up for all the people at one time and NOT the special interest groups. And John Kerry, he literally flips back and forth between both!

Meanwhile the entire republican party is corrupt to a scale far above the actual normal Democratic Leadership Council. But the DLC corruption is simply, sneakier and stealthier. While the GOP corruption is right there in your face.

And all of them, I do mean ALL of them need to be in jail or be serving time at this point.....only the ones who were not involved with Abramoff, the moderates,progressives & responsible leaders like John McCain(who is ALSO a bit corrupt)deserve to be spared whatsoever. And they all need to be cleaned.

John McCain is far from responsible. He kissed Bush's ass all the way through the 2004 campaign, after Rove trashed him because of his military service (and they cry 'patriotism' - I'm gonna hurl).

Nobody fell farther in my estimation over the last two years than John McCain. I'm glad he is standing his ground on the torture issue, but I only think he is finding it in him to do this because he knows that Bush is floundering, losing Republican support, and he wants to capitalize on an appearance of distancing himself from them. If they were rolling strong, he would not be standing up to them. McCain is the worst kind of opportunist, and I despise him precisely because he does know better. He's been on the Daily Show, and you know he doesn't like Bush, but he is too concerned about his own career to make any serious statements about how badly they are screwing this country up.

Like I say John McCain is pretty corrupt when it comes to his opportunistic ways...But he doesn't take special interest money from Bagmen like Abramoff where EVERYONE ELSE does it seems.

And he's a moderate...which I hate to admit he does do the job, because he always flounders back and forth between how good he can look and what he can actually do that's effective.(Besides sucking up)

The political party system invokes group think. Thus, when the neoCons and neoConvicts took over the republican party, the group think effect pulled everyone in that party not only to the right, but to the wrong.

When the 9/11 mystery showed up, group think in the democratic party moved everyone toward supporting the admin, which was infected with neoCons already, and therefore moved the democrats also in the direction the neoCons were going.

So political crime has gone thru the roof, and is primarily centralized in the neoCon lunatic fringe. We now have a strange creature I call the George Bush Democrat. They are quite visible with Zel Miller at the helm, Joe Leiberman at navigator, and Hillary on the radio.

All of a sudden the republicans and democrats are taking a look at what has happened and have to find a way back to where they were.

Some of this finding a way back is pointing to being misled, and has some merit, however if we remember that congress is charged with oversite we must conclude that congress should have watched what was happening more closely.

I mean really, they did not read the Patriot Act before voting in favor of its fascism. That did not come about by them being misled, it came about by them being incompetent and dazed by the lunatic ramblings of the intoxicated neoCons.

But at the same time it is very, very clear that the admin neoCons lied their way into invading Iraq.

Ney and the neoCon ilk also lied their way into enormous and widespread crime.

McCain still wants to be president. So he walks a fine line between taking principled positions that the majority supports, e.g. banning torture, and trying to please the G.O.P. establishment, e.g. by saying Bush didn't lie.

Of course, "mislead" is a gentler verb than "lie." So McCain leaves himself with wiggle room. What's really hard to fathom is why he allowed Bush to trample on his family during the 2000 primary.